The tribal affairs ministry just refuses to listen to any complaint, N C Saxena, member of the National Advisory Council (NAC) and head of the investigating panel on mining in Orissa’s Niyamgiri hills, tells Saubhadra Chatterji
Your panel wants gram sabha (village council) to be the only authorised body to decide use of local forest land for a project.
This is already there in the Forest Rights Act (FRA). Section 5 of FSA says if there are holders of forest rights in an area, the gram sabha is empowered to decide the use of that land and protect that land. As a follow up, the government of India and the government of Orissa issued circulars in 2009. The Orissa circular said if any land was transferred for non-forest activities, the consent of the gram sabha would be taken. The gram sabha will also certify that the procedure under FRA has been followed.
Will this help solve problems in forest areas?
Well, first of all, it has to be implemented. There are many laws in our country that are defunct. FRA is turning out to be another legislation in that list. There is no political and administrative will to implement FRA properly. A number of measures need to be taken for this. You have to facilitate the setting up of gram sabhas and ensure that they can protect their land. If the gram sabha feels the change will benefit its area, it must do it. Why should people sitting in New Delhi feel that gram sabhas will not act in their own interest? If a project can improve my living standard and income, I will definitely say yes to it. But if I feel I will be harmed in the process, I will say no.
The government is planning to amend the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. One of its provisions is that mining companies will share 26 per cent stake with the displaced inhabitants. Do you support this?
It is a good provision, but it has to be seen through two other issues. One, what is the credibility of the government among the tribes? In the last 10 to 15 years, a large number of policies and laws have been announced for the tribes. But most of them have not been properly implemented. So, how will the government convey to the tribes that this provision will be strictly implemented and they will get a lot of money?
Two, when you say the tribes will get 26 per cent, it means there will be displacement. Therefore, you have to see this in the light of the rehabilitation and resettlement policy. So, this 26 per cent share needs to be seen in the context of the overall package you are going to offer to the displaced tribes.
Are you saying that along with MMDRA, passing the land acquisition Bill and the rehabilitation policy are also essential?
Of course. In 1997, I suggested amendments to the Land Acquisition Act. The first NAC during 2004-2008 also took up the issue and we prepared a draft Bill. But the issue is still pending before the government. This shows the urgency the government attaches to these pressing issues. If the government remains undecided for more than 12 years on such a small thing, what is its credibility?
The Trinamool Congress has political objections to this Bill. It feels state governments should not have any role in acquiring land. Do you agree with this?
I think the government should have a limited role, especially in rural and tribal areas. People in New Delhi or Haryana know the market value of their land and are sharp enough to negotiate with industry. But in far-flung tribal areas, they don’t know their basic rights, forget about the market conditions. They won’t even realise what paper they are singing on. Therefore, you need someone to protect them. Otherwise, these innocent tribes will be duped by land sharks. They might buy the entire land by giving a few bottles of mahua (country liquor). Unfortunately, the tribes are being exploited not just by market forces but also by government policies. The government has become a predator and not a protector. If people see the government as their enemy, problems will remain.
Sonia Gandhi wants fundamental innovations in forest and mineral resources management. You are working with her in NAC. What sort of innovations can we expect?
The innovations are already there in FRA. There is no need for any new Bill or law. The Act says the area where forest inhabitants are living or collecting minor forest resources should come under community management. But so far, in the last two-and-a-half years after FRA was enacted, not even 0.01 per cent action has been taken on cases of violation of the Act. FRA has been seen by politicians and bureaucrats as a patta-giving act. The main objective of the Act was to change the process of forest management through community involvement. This has not taken place so far.
What are the impediments?
The tribal affairs ministry is the biggest obstacle to the proper implementation of FSA. It refuses to listen to any complaint. It has never put its weight behind the Act. It is perhaps the weakest department in the government machinery. It doesn’t even know what role it needs to play. It is just collecting data but not providing leadership, not monitoring the progress. Tribal affairs ministries do their job neither at the state level nor at the central level.
How is NAC taking up this issue?
We have formed a sub-group. The meeting will take place soon. The top priorities of NAC are, of course, the Food Security Bill and the Communal Violence Prevention Bill. Tribal issues, governance and agriculture in semi-arid regions are also the key issues before us.
How would you like to compare the tenure of the first UPA government and the second UPA government as far as tribal issues are concerned?
In the first term, the focus was more on legislation and programmes like the rural job scheme and the rural health mission. Now, there is not much scope for introducing new programmes as most of them have already been implemented. The government’s focus has to be proper implementation of these programmes. Unfortunately, government managers don’t look like they are interested in improving the performance. The public distribution system (PDS) is the worst programme as far as implementation is concerned. But the central government, the Planning Commission or the states, none of them has come out with any evaluation report on the status of PDS.
